Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Trump Signs Police Reform Executive Order While Strongly Backing Police, Soon After Meeting Victims' Families; Pence Calls Coronavirus Case Spike Concerns "Overblown"; Ex-Cop Who Killed Rayshard Brooks Was Previously Reprimanded For Use Of Force. Aired 9- 10p ET

Aired June 16, 2020 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[21:00:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --September, after serving in the White House for 17 months. Just yesterday, President Trump said that Bolton would have criminal problems if the book is published as is.

According to the publisher, the book will detail a President who sees getting reelected as the only thing that matters, even if that means endangering or weakening the nation.

A source close to Bolton says he's still planning on publishing, as scheduled, next Tuesday. That means he'll deal with any ramifications after the fact.

The news continues. Let's hand over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thank you, Anderson.

I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

Question, can you address a problem if you won't even mention it? The answer has to be "No." And yet, the President boasted about police reform.

And once again, like all along, during these three long weeks, since George Floyd was allegedly murdered, he never even mentioned the words "Bias" or "Systemic racism." Instead, he says there have been instances where officers misused their power, "Misused."

I misuse a counter if I use it to open a beer. However, I abuse alcohol if I drink 10 beers, and then kill somebody. That's more like what we saw with the police and Floyd, abuse of power, not simply misuse.

And words matter, especially when they are picked for a President in order to state the absolute minimum.

So there he was, Trump, surrounded for a photo-op, the victims' families did not attend it because the White House says it shouldn't look like a photo-op. Quite the distinction! So too was the President's mixed message. One part, "We're with you."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: To all of the hurting families, I want you to know that all Americans mourn by your side. Your loved ones will not have died in vain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: You can almost feel the wince, the world over, when Trump then offers no real change, no recognition of the real wrongs, and then salting the wound by saying "Americans really want law and order. They demand law and order. They may not say it, they may not be talking about it, but that's what they want."

No, Mr. President. What they want is for you to look down from on high and see a reality they live every day in America. They know what they want. And you made it clear today that you are not with them.

So, the question becomes, where will the masses pushing for more and bettering streets all over this country get the leadership they seek? "Right here," says New Jersey Senator, Cory Booker, who is a co- sponsor of the Democrats' version of a police reform bill.

We've just learned Senate Republicans are going to roll out their version tomorrow morning.

Senator Booker, always a pleasure.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): Thank you for having me on. It's good to be with you again.

CUOMO: A reaction to what the President said, and did not say, and did, and did not do today.

BOOKER: Well I think you hit it on the head with his tenor and tone.

His press conference talked a lot about the economy, a lot about how happy he was with sales going up in May, 17 percent. It was, in many ways, tone-deaf to speaking to the issue at hand that has the country with hundreds of thousands of people of all 50 states out protesting.

And then, in terms of just the teeth, we will not see change in policing practices to the extent that will stop the large-scale kind of police brutality, racial bias, and other challenges we're having with most extreme cases that we've caught on videotape with Breonna Taylor, or George Floyd, or the many other names that we know, and many that we don't, unless there's real accountability.

And that means changing the standards for criminal prosecution and civil accountability. That means having pattern-and-practice investigations. That means changing the standards for use of force from a use of force that is one that has a lot more to do with what whether something's necessary or not. So--

CUOMO: That's the President. He wants to make a deal. You sure you don't want to answer it?

BOOKER: I - it's actually - it's actually my girlfriend.

CUOMO: Far more important.

BOOKER: Yes. Far more--

CUOMO: That's all right. Hang it on me. Say that you were talking to me. I'll take the heat. Go ahead, Senator.

BOOKER: I will, Chris. I will. Are you there?

CUOMO: Yes, I'm here. So, today--

BOOKER: OK.

CUOMO: --tell me what doesn't do it for you with what the President said today in "We should create a Federal database of officers with a history of excessive use of force, use federal grants to motivate departments to meet higher certification standards on use of force, chokeholds are banned, except when the officer's life is at risk."

[21:05:00]

And the Executive Order also directs the Secretary of HHS to encourage police departments to embed mental health professionals.

BOOKER: Look, a lot of - a lot of those things, again, are not creating a real system of accountability. And what I mean by that is "If you do these practices, there will be real consequences. If officers break the law, our Federal government will prosecute you."

Right now, the standard on 242, which is a criminal section for prosecution, is too high and - and doesn't get used. The 1983 civil cases, he's not talking about qualified immunity at all.

So, it's very hard if you are not really having a consequence when officers do things that are not only against our community standards but against the law.

He doesn't ban religious and racial profiling. That's something that Bush called forward in his first address to Congress. Doesn't talk about racial bias training. It does not elevate, in any way, the kind of issues that are being asked for by Civil Rights communities, not just now, but have been asked for, for a very long time.

And so, we've got to make sure that this is a bill that - that we get a bill that actually has teeth in it that can change the culture of policing, the accountability of policing, and also the transparency, even as database is shielded from the public, activist organizations, others cannot see what the patterns of the true misconduct of officers is.

CUOMO: You know, one little suggestion that we talk about here on the show a lot, certain states have laws that create boundaries on when body camera footage is available to the public. That seems to be one of the biggest problems with transparency. They

have information often that the public would need to know. It may change their perspective on what happened in favor of officers or against officers, something to throw out there.

What is the chance that you get to a better place with Senator Tim Scott on the Republican side putting out a proposal tomorrow and maybe negotiating a bill?

BOOKER: Look, I'm just coming out of almost a five-hour hearing on these issues, and had some substantive conversations with my Republican colleagues. You heard from the panelists that unless there is a real consequence, it's hard to say that there's going to be change.

I can go through the reports all the way from the Kerner report, all the way up to President Obama's 21st Century Task Force on Policing, and we're still having the same conversation. We're still witnessing, in gruesome video, the deathly consequences of not having real accountability.

And so, those are the things that have to change. There needs to be a standard, practices that are banned, practices that are required, a way of measuring progress, so you can see how things are happening.

That means opening it up with - to sunshine an examination of patterns and practices, as well as data collection, and then ultimately having a consequence, when you fail to meet those standards, which is you are criminally culpable when you break the law.

You could be civilly culpable when you violate somebody's civil rights. And when it comes to using force, against another human being, it has to be necessary to use that force, not just justifiable.

We want to make sure that those uses of force are necessary. And if you violate that, there will be consequences. That's how you change culture.

CUOMO: We will see what they put out tomorrow. But a lot of that isn't even on the table. So, let's see where they start.

BOOKER: No. No.

CUOMO: And where we'll go from there.

I wanted to ask you about something else. And this is a tough conversation to have right now. And, in fact, we really can't even have it. We don't know enough yet.

But this is upsetting, at a minimum, and painful, at a minimum, how many young Black men have been found hanged recently. Whether or not it's homicide or a suicide, Cory - Senator, these are painful and horrible things to behold.

I wanted to talk to you about the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. Now, I don't know that it fits with these cases. It's very unusual. African- American communities are not known for suicide, let alone by hanging.

But what is your take on these cases arising during this conflagration that we're dealing with in the country?

BOOKER: Look, first of all, my heart goes out to the families of those who were found hanged. It's - it's disturbing. It's awful. And, you're right. We don't have enough facts yet, to draw any conclusions.

But look, I think that there is a - there is a grief in Black communities that is deep, where you have people getting - dying in childbirth at three times, four times the rate of White women.

You have the violence against young bodies, where the number one indicator of whether you're around toxicity, giving you cancers, or lead poisoning, is the color of your skin. There're so many conditions out there that make people afraid.

[21:10:00]

You and I haven't talked about the attacks on Black Trans women, the murders of Black Trans women that seem to be rising in degree over the last few years, or at least into the public consciousness.

We have a real conversation we have to have about the security and safety of Black bodies in this country. And even if these are mental health and, by the way, I'm seeing with suicides being unconsciously high in our country, I'm seeing rise in the data for Black - Black suicides as well.

All of these things should arise our compassion and our concern to want to do something about the loss of life from the various sources that we see in the African-American community. And it affects all of us. It affects the strength of this nation as a whole.

CUOMO: This has always been a strength of yours as a human being, let alone as a politician. I was reflecting today on how long you and I have known each other now.

BOOKER: Yes.

CUOMO: I'm coming up on my 50th birthday. I'm much older than you. But you - compassion comes to you quickly and deeply.

And I really believe it's going to be the key here, Senator, because some people don't - are never going to understand a life through somebody else's eyes. It's a different world from the one they're in.

But pain is relatable. And pain that makes somebody want to take their own life, and shatters their family, is something that hopefully resonates, no matter what we find out about these cases.

And again, it is very curious to find Black men hanging in America, as a function of suicide. But we'll wait for the facts.

And the conversation opportunity is always here for you, Senator Cory Booker. God bless, and good luck going forward. BOOKER: Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

CUOMO: All right.

BOOKER: Appreciate you, Chris.

CUOMO: Thank you, Senator.

All right, so let's go from one plague to another. Did you hear the news? "No second wave of Coronavirus. And the steps we need to take until then are way easier," we've been told until now.

But there's a big problem with all this new promise of better days, especially for Trumpers. I have a sickening fact-check ahead, with Chief Doctor, Sanjay Gupta, all of it, ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, wish I could tell you this is new. But it turns out that, once again, the White House is at odds with the CDC, over the state of the pandemic.

Now, this is the difference between political feeling and fact. This time, the perpetrator is the Vice President Mike Pence, who wrote an Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal, declaring there's no second wave coming, and any concerns about spikes in new cases is overblown.

He says, quote, "More than half of states are actually seeing cases decline or remain stable. And in the six states that have reached, more than a 1,000 new cases a day, increased testing has allowed public health officials to identify most of the outbreaks in particular settings, prisons, nursing homes, meatpacking facilities, and contain them."

Now, there is no question that he is cherry-picking circumstances to paint a better picture.

The bigger concern is a CDC official telling CNN, the Vice President is doing exactly that with the data, pointing out that at least 18 states are categorized by the CDC as high-burdened, and cases are not going down.

You see, the source of the rebuttal, being the CDC, is especially indicative of this conflict. Only one of them can be right.

The Chief Doctor, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, is back with us tonight.

It is good to see you, my friend.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Chris.

CUOMO: The idea of what the Vice President is suggesting is testing. They're testing more, so they're identifying more cases. That's the explanation for the numbers.

Well then how do you explain the increase in hospitalizations in Arizona--

GUPTA: Right.

CUOMO: --Texas, Florida?

GUPTA: North Carolina. I mean all these places, not only are they high, but they're some of the highest hospitalizations throughout this entire pandemic. So, yes, you can't explain that just by increased testing.

There's no question, Chris, that more testing, you're going to find more cases. That's true. But here's a really important point. And I want to make this point because it's a little counterintuitive.

The whole reason you do more testing is to ultimately bring down the number of cases. You find people who have the virus. You isolate them. And you prevent the virus from being spread.

Take a look at this from New York, first, we'll show this.

As you had testing sort of go up, what happened to the case count over time? We know what's happening in New York overall. There's the tests in New York. You see how they've gone up, seven-day moving average there?

Now, let's look at what's happened to the actual number of people, who've been diagnosed with the infection there, in New York, you're going to see that actually go down, if we may have that.

But I want you to compare that to Florida, for example, which is a State that's often used as an - as an example here. The testing, if anything, has sort of plateaued, maybe even gone down a little bit, and what's happened there? Case counts have actually gone up.

So again, you think about this as--

CUOMO: So, what is - what is the read - what's these--

GUPTA: --it's a counterintuitive point.

CUOMO: So, what do people pull from that?

GUPTA: Well people pull - we should pull from this is, first of all, the increased testing is not what's fueling the increased case count, OK, because that that seems to be a message that's out there. It's incorrect.

Increased testing should lead to a decreased case count. Plus, in many states, where you've actually decreased testing, the numbers are still going up. So, it's not just that you're looking more, you're finding more that - that I know eminently sort of makes sense to people.

But that's not the situation here. If you're testing the right amount, ultimately it should lead to decreased number of people being infected, because you find the people and you isolate them, and you prevent it from being spread.

So yes, we're seeing increased testing. But the increased case counts are outpacing that increased testing. There's definitely more spread of the virus. That is clear from all the data that you look at.

CUOMO: Can you justify the VP getting to the conclusion that he doesn't think there'll be a second wave?

GUPTA: No. I, you know, it's interesting. I might even abandon the term "Waves" right now because, you know, we sort of use this.

CUOMO: Yes.

GUPTA: And it's a bit archaic in some ways, going back a 100 years to the - the Flu pandemic, at that point. We're not even out of the first wave yet.

So, you know, the idea that we're going to have a complete sort of, you know, diminution of the case count, and then it's going to come back up to a second wave, I'm not sure that's going to happen.

If you look at the country overall, we have come down, since the peak in April.

[21:20:00]

It's, you know, I mean if you can call this acceptable, still, you know, 600-some people dying every day, in this country, more than people have died in - during the entire pandemic in other countries, but if that's sort of the plateau, you may have a little bit of a plateau here.

But I think what you're hearing from all the public health officials is, you know, come August, this is likely to increase again, in part because, you know, we're reopening.

We're seeing all the impacts of that reopening now. People are not being as judicious about mask-wearing. You know, people are getting together in these settings that are, you know, dangerous in the sense they're indoors, lots of people aggregated together, that's where you get these super-spreader events.

So, there could be a second wave in the sense that things could get worse again. But other people, including Dr. Fauci, have referred to this as another peak within this - this existing wave.

So, call it what you want. But - but, you know, if things stay the way they are, right now, we are likely to get worse again, in terms of overall numbers of people getting infected, and being hospitalized.

CUOMO: You know, the last thing that my brother, Andrew, wants to be saying right now is "Hey, if people keep reopening in ways that is not the right way, and the numbers keep getting bad, we're going to have to make hard decisions again." He does not want to be talking that talk. But it's the responsible thing to do.

Let's do this, Sanjay. Let's take a quick break, and come back--

GUPTA: OK.

CUOMO: --and talk about some more research that came out about what they found so far that's worked best, in terms of practice, and then a drug that may be making enough of a significant difference to discuss.

We'll have them both, right after this.

GUPTA: Yes.

CUOMO: With Chief Doctor, and Accordion Extraordinaire, Sanjay Gupta.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, two pieces of information, let's bring back Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

First, Sanjay, there was a study that said what has worked best in curtailing case increases was the combination of keeping people at home and contact tracing. There's that phrase again that we hear least. And often, clinicians, and those on the investigative side, value it most.

What do you make of that?

GUPTA: Yes. No. I think - I think, you know, at the beginning, we didn't have a lot of this data.

You know, we had some idea that, you know, obviously the stay-at-home orders, reducing the cycle of transmission was going to make a big difference. What we now have, 5.5 months into this, is some - some real data.

So yes, staying at home, being able to trace contacts, after people have been infected, it's - it's the basic sort of bread and butter of Public Health.

We now know, in countries around the world, it made a huge difference, Chris. I mean, you know, again, I've been reluctant, in some ways, to always compare the United States to other countries. A lot of people say "Well, you know, what about our public health system?"

Our public health system, it can work well in so many ways. But, in this situation, it didn't. You know, in South Korea, you know, they have - they measure their deaths in the hundreds, as opposed to the thousands or hundreds of thousands.

CUOMO: Right.

GUPTA: Why? They didn't have a medicine. They didn't have a vaccine.

They had testing and tracing. It works, if you do it early, and - and you're not - you're not scared to actually implement some of those measures very early on. We just didn't do that in this country.

CUOMO: We're still not really doing it. And now, we're removing the stay-at-home aspect, and people still aren't ramping up their manpower of contact tracing, the way they were supposed to.

So that then takes us from the method to the medicine. This latest drug that entered the fold, Dexamethasone, it's a corticosteroid.

GUPTA: Yes.

CUOMO: Now one, what is a corticosteroid? And what do you make of this most recent study?

GUPTA: Well let me preface by saying something that we have said a lot during the coverage of this particular pandemic. And that is that this is still a press release, essentially, that we're seeing about this new study.

We wouldn't even be reporting this on your program, except that there's such a demand, obviously, for some sort of therapeutic that works. So, we want to look at the full study.

But if the press release is correct, and what this shows, this would be the first drug that actually reduces the mortality when it comes to this disease, COVID-19.

You remember Remdesivir. That was the first drug that showed any effectiveness. But that was in terms of speeding up recovery.

This drug, again, if the data is correct, actually reduces mortality, and significantly, for the sickest patients. So patients who are on a ventilator, it reduced their mortality by a third. Patients, who are on oxygen, reduced their mortality by a fifth. That's pretty significant.

Corticosteroid is - it's a steroid. And what a steroid does, you know, all the medications you hear of non-steroidals, right, the Ibuprofen, those types of things, those are non-steroidals.

They're all in comparison to steroids. Steroids are the most powerful sort of immunosuppressing drugs. They dampen down your immune system. They dampen down inflammation.

The thinking has been this, Chris. In those sickest patients, what is actually making them so sick, and what is possibly killing them?

It's not so much the virus, at that point. It's the body's response to the virus. It's all the inflammation that sort of bombards the lungs, and bombards these other organs.

What do you do about all that other inflammation? You give a drug that dampens that inflammation, in this case, a steroid, and it seems to work. This is a cheap, widely-available drug.

In some of the patients, it was given orally, the ones who weren't on a breathing machine, or a ventilator, and in other patients, it was given by injection, just a few milligrams, I believe, 6 milligrams for 10 days, that's a very reasonable dose. And it seemed to have a major impact.

So, if this is true, again, the studies hold up, this could be a significant finding, not just in terms of this drug alone, but what it might mean for other drugs, that are similar drugs.

Could you create a cocktail of drugs to decrease the inflammation, and possibly not only help patients, but - but save them? Again, this is the only drug that has shown that so far.

CUOMO: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much.

GUPTA: You got it, Chris.

[21:30:00]

CUOMO: All right now, last night, we showed you why we argue that the Atlanta cop had better options than shooting and killing Rayshard Brooks, even after Brooks fired that stolen TASER at him.

Our next guest was patrolling the streets - streets in Georgia, for himself, for decades. Now, he believes that the officer involved, Officer Rolfe was justified. How does he make the case? Let's test it, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Some newer information.

Atlanta Police released disciplinary records for both officers involved in the death of Rayshard Brooks. The one who opened fire, Officer Rolfe, had, in his six years, on the job, a prior reprimand for use of force, involving a firearm.

[21:35:00]

Now, in general, Georgia law is pretty clear. An officer can use deadly force if the suspect possesses a deadly weapon. In the case of Rayshard Brooks, does discharging a TASER, over his shoulder, while running away justify shooting him multiple times from behind?

We put that question to Steven Gaynor. He is the President of the Fraternal Order of Police in Cobb County, Georgia.

Welcome to PRIME TIME, and thank you for your service to the community there.

STEVEN GAYNOR, PRESIDENT, COBB COUNTY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE: Thanks Chris. Thanks for having me on, and let me tell the other side of the story.

CUOMO: Please. So, why do you believe this shooting was justified?

GAYNOR: Well Chris, I think if you look at the whole situation, look at the whole story, with an open mind, from start to finish, you look at the officers dealing with Mr. Brooks in a very calm and peaceful manner, for about 43 minutes.

And then, you see it suddenly change, when they tell Mr. Brooks he's under arrest, and begin to put the handcuffs on. Mr. Brooks becomes violent and begins to attack the officers.

CUOMO: All right.

GAYNOR: He throws them--

CUOMO: So, let's go step by step. I'm with you.

GAYNOR: Sure, yes.

CUOMO: There's a lot of chitchat, a lot of niceties, for a long time. What about the benign option of the guy says he's going to walk home. He's got a sister in the area. You know, he's not far. He'll leave the car here. He'll go.

Why not giving him the option of letting him leave that way? "Leave the car here, walk home, or maybe we'll give you a ride, if we're leaving," whatever. Why not go that way?

GAYNOR: The officers have lots of options available. They chose to make the DUI arrest.

Who's to - who's to say that he's going to say "I'm going to walk home," and then come back, as soon as the officers drive away, and take his car, and go out and kill somebody, driving DUI?

You know, well that's a liability we take when we leave somebody at the scene. You leave somebody with, that's DUI, at the scene, with a car, but even if he walks away who knows that he doesn't have another key, if you take his keys?

You don't know the facts. You don't know what's going to happen.

CUOMO: Right. He was pretty clearly intoxicated.

GAYNOR: So, those - those options were built.

CUOMO: And he was reported as intoxicated to them. Why'd they let him drive the car in the parking lot, if it was such a no-brainer that it was a DUI arrest?

GAYNOR: They moved - they had him move the car to a - to a space, which was only about 20 feet away. So, moving it out of the drive- thru, they were still in the investigative phase, OK?

At that point, they're not sure that he's DUI. They're investigating it. But they're not sure he's DUI. It's not till they do the test and determine that they believe him to be under the influence of something, and they're going to place him under arrest.

CUOMO: OK. So now, they say "We're going to place you under arrest," everything goes sideways. He resists. There are now two of the officers.

And when I watch this video, and please, Mr. Gaynor, I had you come on, for your candor, OK? You know this stuff better than I. I have spent a lot of years doing self-defense, and different kind of suppressive movement training, literally over a dozen years.

When I watch these two officers trying to take him down, I don't see a lot of adeptness by them. They're really struggling with this one guy. I don't see any evidence of super strength by him, or him being drugged up in a way. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

What kind of training do the officers get in using non-deadly force in how to apprehend somebody?

GAYNOR: We do get training. Almost every year, we have annual training, in which they train how to take somebody into custody. But, you know, a person, every person is different. Every person is different in the way they fight.

Mr. Brooks, I think, was very strong. I think he was able to surprise them, when he, all of a sudden, attacked them. And I - he took them to the ground, which is not a good position for the police to be in. An officer does not like to be on the ground.

He punched them, which is as assault, upon the officers, when he began punching them. I think it was just a knock-down-drag-out fight, at that point, until Mr. Brooks grabbed the TASER.

CUOMO: So, he grabs the TASER.

GAYNOR: And all during--

CUOMO: And runs away.

GAYNOR: Yes.

CUOMO: Why do you think that--

GAYNOR: Let's state--

CUOMO: --that part of the fact pattern, him running away with the TASER that he apparently reaches back, I don't know - I don't know which arm, we'll watch in the video, but reaches back with the TASER, discharges it, and that's when the officer chasing him fires at him several times, hitting him at least twice.

GAYNOR: OK. So--

CUOMO: Why was that OK?

GAYNOR: Well, to finish, on the fight part, they tell him not to take the - they tell him "Let go. Let go," and he refuses. So, he now steals the TASER, from the officer, gets up and runs.

He does fire the TASER. It does appear to hit the officer, when you watch it. You do see the flash of the TASER. You see the officer bounce off the car. And, at that point, I think the shots are fired about the same split-second that it's occurring.

Now, the back-shots are just the - the way he's positioned, when the shots go off, whether he's turning back around, or whether he was fight - turned in a twisted mode, where his back was available so--

CUOMO: No. He was - he was running away. This is a huge part of the fact pattern.

The idea that the shots were just put, where his body was positioned, is being a little too forgiving, I think, in the analysis. Shooting someone from behind is not what you are trained to do. Isn't that correct?

[21:40:00]

GAYNOR: You can't predict how a person's going to bob and weave, and where the bullets are going to go, after it leaves your gun.

If they're facing towards you, and the reaction time that you have, you fire, they could turn around. Your reaction time is a lot slower than their reaction time. They know what they're going to do. You have to react to what they're going to do.

CUOMO: But he never turns around.

GAYNOR: So the shot--

CUOMO: He's just running away, and twists his body, and fires, what they knew to be a TASER because they knew he didn't have a handgun on him. They'd already searched him. And a TASER doesn't count as deadly - deadly force when you guys use it.

So, why does it become one--

GAYNOR: When--

CUOMO: --when he uses it?

GAYNOR: When we use it. A trained individual using a TASER is not a deadly weapon by Georgia law. So, a trained individual knows where to aim the - the TASER. An untrained individual does not then it becomes a deadly weapon, at that point. And if you go by the--

CUOMO: That's not in the law. Where do you get that from?

GAYNOR: Well I get it from the training then, OK?

So, the training that we've had for over 20 years tells us that that - if they take your baton, or your TASER, it now becomes one step more that you have to use deadly force because those can be used against you, to incapacitate you, and then take your weapon.

And - and if you look at the District Attorney from Fulton County, two weeks ago, the TASER was a deadly weapon. This case, the TASER is not a deadly weapon. So, Mr. District Attorney, you've got to make up your mind. Is it, is it or isn't it a deadly weapon?

CUOMO: What case--

GAYNOR: Because it really makes a difference.

CUOMO: --was it a deadly weapon?

GAYNOR: It was a - the case with the two college students in the protest down in City of Atlanta, in which those two officers were fired, and then arrested by the District Attorney, only before the investigation was even complete.

CUOMO: I understand why that was frustrating to a lot of officers. And I know it took the Chief by surprise. I don't remember the TASER being a fundamental part of the analysis there.

It was the method of which the kids were removed, and the officer, who I believe, may have been an officer, who wasn't the initial one dealing with them, but came in, and picked up one of the kids, suspects, and threw him on the ground, and had to have another officer tell him to back off.

I don't remember that being about the TASER. But let's go one case at a time.

GAYNOR: OK.

CUOMO: This case comes down to that last moment, I believe, in my legal analysis. And that's why I'm interested in your take on this.

All right, he has the TASER. Maybe it's a dangerous thing, maybe it isn't. It has to come down to how it's used. It's fired over a shoulder, and turned with someone, who was clearly running away, in a parking lot, where there're all these families and stuff and parked cars.

That's a good decision from an officer to start firing at that person running away in a parking lot that's filled with cars with people in it?

GAYNOR: I don't know from the video, Chris, what his backdrop is.

Obviously, the officer felt it was a safe environment because we are trained to look at the backstop. So, if his backstop was clear, and he felt comfortable in the shot, that's probably why he took it. But I can't tell from the videos what the back-shot is.

CUOMO: But his being comfortable--

GAYNOR: What - what's there.

CUOMO: --taking it is different than it being OK. Some officers have described this as maybe lawful but awful, in terms of choices.

Do you really believe you can justify shooting a man multiple times in the back, while he's running away, when you know where he lives?

GAYNOR: I think--

CUOMO: You know, aren't you guys trying to be "Protect life?"

GAYNOR: I think you can justify this case by Georgia law.

It specifically gives him the right, based on the aggravated assaults, and the - and the threat he poses to the public, and to the officers there. This specifically gives them, by law, the right to shoot him.

He chose to make those actions. He chose to do what he did. He could have been like a 100 other DUIs that night. Got arrested, bonded out, and gone home to his family.

CUOMO: True. But resisting arrest--

GAYNOR: But he chose something else.

CUOMO: But resisting arrest, as we both know, is not a death sentence. And you're right. Mr. Brooks made choices that were bad choices. The officers are trained in de-escalation, and they're supposed to be protecting, and serving. Maybe, under the law, an officer may be deemed to have had the right. But do you think what he did was right? Would you have done the same thing in that situation?

GAYNOR: I can't tell you, Chris. I wasn't there. I'd have to experience the whole thing. I don't think that either one of us can say not being there. We can quarterback this thing all day long. But we weren't there. We weren't experiencing the punches.

CUOMO: But you worked on the streets. You were in tough situations. You ever fired anybody who was running away from you without a gun?

GAYNOR: I didn't have to use my weapon after 30-plus years. I was very good. I didn't have to use my weapon. I was pretty good at talking. I got out of a lot of serious situations with people with weapons. I was lucky.

Some - a lot of officers are not that lucky. And - and they have to do what they have to do to go home. And you have to look at it, from their point of view.

CUOMO: We both know he could have gotten home--

GAYNOR: This is what he felt was necessary.

CUOMO: --if he hadn't fired at him. And he'd still have a job if he hadn't--

GAYNOR: Well we don't--

CUOMO: --fired at him.

GAYNOR: We don't know what would have happened. We don't know--

CUOMO: He was running away, Steve.

GAYNOR: --what--

CUOMO: What was going to happen? He's running away.

GAYNOR: Chris, he - what's he going to do when he runs away? What's he going to do? Is he - now we know what the criminal history is, but we didn't know that at the time.

[21:45:00]

But could he carjack somebody? Could he be scared so much that he's going to kidnap somebody in another car? Is he going to hurt a civilian?

There's a lot of things that come into play that you have to play out and go. I'm responsible for this individual that I was going to arrest. And he now has a weapon that I provided him because he took it from me. So, I have to do my job.

CUOMO: A discharged TASER is not exactly the most dangerous thing that somebody can be handing - handling around. If he had a knife, if he had a sharp stick, he'd be a lot more dangerous to people than just having the TASER.

And under the law, you have to believe either that he has something that he's going to seriously hurt somebody with, or that he has committed a crime that makes him a danger to seriously injure somebody.

Which were those boxes did they check here?

GAYNOR: Well he has committed a crime. He's committed an Ag assault upon two police officers. He's stolen an item from one police officer.

CUOMO: The analysis is about what he did before the altercation with the police. You don't get to build in what happened in that moment with him as proof of his criminal behavior. That's not in the case law.

GAYNOR: No you - you do because what he does, from his actions, causes what occurs in his death, not the previous action, where he's - they're all compliant. What he does when he's told he's under arrest, a lawful arrest, they go to put the handcuffs on him, a lawful arrest with detention, and he fights. He chooses to fight.

CUOMO: He fights. He chooses to fight.

GAYNOR: That causes - that causes all these things to then spiral. So, you've got to take those into account. The - the first part is a whole different situation with--

CUOMO: Whole different situation. I'm with you on that.

GAYNOR: --a very cordial - very cordial conversation.

CUOMO: I get you. It's all--

GAYNOR: And then it just--

CUOMO: It all changes once he resists. And then the analysis will be--

GAYNOR: And that--

CUOMO: --did the officers make the right choices, under the law, in this situation?

GAYNOR: Under the law, they did.

CUOMO: All right, Steven Gaynor.

GAYNOR: Totally under the law, as trained. But Chris, let me add this.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

GAYNOR: If you want to change how the officers react to deadly force, and how they use it, you can't change the rules, after you've been training these officers, for over 20 years that this is how it goes, and then, all of a sudden, when this happens, you want to change the rules.

If you want to change it to let people run away, because they don't want to be arrested, the society needs to change the rules, and the laws, and then you have to retrain the police. But you can't change the rules--

CUOMO: On the fly.

GAYNOR: --after you've already trained somebody. Yes, on the fly.

CUOMO: I don't have any - I don't have any problem with that. If what we're talking about is changing what was trained, you're absolutely right. People have to bear the benefit of the training.

GAYNOR: That's right.

CUOMO: This is, in your own explanation, I would take issue with whether or not how they were dealing with deadly force was the issue here. That will be decided by a jury, if there are any charges. We'll see what happens.

Steven Gaynor, you're welcome back to make the case, as we learn what happens next.

GAYNOR: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, God bless and be well.

GAYNOR: All right, now.

CUOMO: Done.

GAYNOR: My next guests tested positive for COVID-19. Sucks! And it happened to them after a night of fun that went bad fast. 16 friends got it. Yes, this is a cautionary tale. Don't take it from me. Take it from people who are out just wanting to have a good time, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Seven workers at a Florida bar, and a group of 16 friends, who were out for a night of fun, all tested positive for Coronavirus. Erika Crisp was one of them. She's been sick for a week. But she's here, along with two of those friends, Kat Layton and Dara.

Is it Sweet or Sweatt?

DARA SWEATT, TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT TOGETHER, GROUP OF 16 FRIENDS TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT: It's Sweatt.

CUOMO: All right, good to have you.

Now, I don't want any of you to sweat. This is not one of these sessions. I'm happy that you are feeling better. You're young. Thank God you didn't get hit the way I did. I just wanted to quickly give each of you a chance to share how you now feel, after this experience.

Erika, starting with you, I know nobody had masks. It was crowded in there, just like a normal bar. Why did you think it was OK to do it that way? And what do you think now?

ERIKA CRISP, TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT TOGETHER, GROUP OF 16 FRIENDS TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT: I think, at the time, it was more out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

We hadn't known anybody, who had it personally. Governor, Mayor, everybody says it's fine. We go out. It's a friend's birthday. It was a mistake. Thank God (ph).

CUOMO: How do you feel about it now? You say it's a mistake. What do you want people to think?

CRISP: I feel foolish. It's too soon. Clearly it's, you know, we got super-sick almost immediately, within days. So, I just I feel foolish.

CUOMO: Hey look, the most effective preacher is a convert. Now you can tell people, "I know why you think it's not a big deal. Learn from me, at least from now."

CRISP: Yes.

CUOMO: Thank you for coming forward and doing this. I know this is not how you wanted to make your debut on CUOMO PRIME TIME. But thank you for doing it.

CRISP: Yes.

CUOMO: Kat Layton?

CRISP: Thank you.

CUOMO: You were there as well. You had--

KAT LAYTON, TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT TOGETHER, GROUP OF 16 FRIENDS TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 AFTER NIGHT OUT: I was.

CUOMO: --a little different set of symptoms. You were of that "No smell no taste" variety.

LAYTON: Yes.

CUOMO: How are you feeling now? And how has your perspective changed?

LAYTON: I'm feeling fine. I really am.

I, you know, it is very bizarre to be able to breathe in, but not smell, you know, your favorite things. But it kind of feels a little spoiled to complain about things like that, at the moment. But my experience is definitely, you know, of course we're regretful.

We do feel foolish, standing there, in front of all those people. We knew we were - we were pushing it. And, you know, and it's a little overwhelming, yes, I think, to - to kind of be ahead of this.

But really, we just want to raise awareness. We want to let - get ahead of it, and tell people that, you know, it's really not ready for how we - what we thought it was ready for. It's - it's too soon.

CUOMO: When you realize, Dara that you weren't feeling well, what went through your mind?

SWEATT: There's a global pandemic going on, and I feel sick. I was a little like I was a little scared, a little nervous. And receiving the text message that my friends were just boom positive, boom positive, boom positive, back-to-back-to-back was almost a little overwhelming.

CUOMO: Did anybody get sick-sick?

[21:55:00]

SWEATT: Not to my knowledge. I think all of our symptoms were fairly mild. I do believe that one or two of us had flu-like symptoms, and we're kind of like laying in bed. But, for the most part, I've - I experienced very mild symptoms--

LAYTON: Yes.

SWEATT: --throughout the entire time.

CUOMO: Like four days' or five days' worth.

LAYTON: Fortunately.

CUOMO: And then it started to get better?

SWEATT: Yes. Yes, Sir.

LAYTON: Yes.

CUOMO: Erika, I know there was a group of 16 of you. Everybody got sick?

CRISP: Everybody. Every one of us.

CUOMO: And did you hear stories about people who weren't part of your group getting sick there? Does anybody believe it was something about that place? Or you think it's just--

CRISP: Yes.

CUOMO: --doing too much too soon?

CRISP: No. Yes. I've been - since this all went public, a few days ago in the local news, I've been messaged, inboxed, by strangers, complete strangers that were there that same weekend, Friday, and Saturday, and Sunday, who are now very sick.

So, it wasn't just our group. It wasn't just us. But there was one place in common. It was the only place that we could go so.

CUOMO: Well listen, if people can't identify with you, you know, it's one thing when it hears from like old guy like me, but for young people, who are still viable, and just living your life, and you're being told everything's OK, that's why I invited you guys on.

I'm not here to shake a finger at you. Thank God you're feeling better. And hopefully now, if you have any guilt about it, coming on, letting people know the truth, Bravo for you!

And also, if you have the antibodies, when you're able to test, give plasma, and you'll wind up doing good for people in a situation that started out--

LAYTON: Yes.

CUOMO: --the wrong way. God bless each and every one of you.

LAYTON: Absolutely.

CUOMO: Take care.

LAYTON: Thank you.

CRISP: Thank you.

SWEATT: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, we'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)